Orthodontics clinic

11/07/2026

Developmental defects of enamel (DDE) and Orthodontics

It is a well known fact that hypoplastic and/or hypomineralised enamel responds differently to etch and bonding.
This study provides an overview how to best handle DDE in orthodontic treatment, particularly dental fluorosis (DF).

▪️Many techniques were examined in the included studies to enhance bond strength; Enamel deproteinization with NaOCl, air abrasion with and without acid etching, enamel bleaching, conditioning, using different bonding materials, Prolonged etching, and Laser.

Key findings
🔹The mean shear bond strength(SBS) in DF is approximately 2 MPa lower than normal enamel.
🔹 Most interventions achieve ‘acceptable’ SBS in vitro, but clinical data on failure rates, enamel damage, and patient-centred outcomes are still largely lacking.
🔹Clinical evidence is limited to two small

Thanks to research team led by Sabel , Farhan Bazargani , Alansari, and Vaiid for their great contributions.

📎 RG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/408506921_Developmental_defects_of_enamel_and_bonding_in_orthodontics_-_A_scoping_review

📎SIO: https://www.semortho.com/article/S1073-8746(26)00059-9/fulltext

30/06/2026

Genetic Variants and Dental Caries

We have conducted an umbrella review to evaluate the strength and consistency of evidence linking genetic variants to dental caries susceptibility.

We have applied for the firts time in dentistry three level meta analaysis Due to clustering nature of these studies as the gene variants are nested within a gene category.

What did we find
✅The multilevel meta-analysis showed statistically significant associations for polymorphisms in TAS2R38 rs713598 (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.09–0.73) and VDR Cdx-2 rs11568820 (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46–0.95), both indicating lower odds of dental caries, while MBL2 rs1800450 was associated with increased odds (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.03–2.14).

Thanks to the great research team:

Halah Khalifa, Lina Bahanan, Ranna Yousif Johansson, Julia Naoumova and Anna Westerlund

30/06/2026

What is the quality of information about orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery on TikTok?

To answer this research question, we searched TikTok and analyzed 250 videos using two validated assessment scales.

What did we find?
✅ The quality of information on TikTok about orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery varies, but overall, it is poor.

Many thanks to the researchers from Guys’ Hospital, Melody Shirazi and Taneesa Javed, and special thanks to Farooq Ahmed for his leadership throughout this project.

To read more please click the link:

RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/407209658_TikTok_as_a_source_of_patient_information_for_orthodontics_and_orthognathic_surgery

APOS: https://apospublications.com/?view-pdf=1&embedded=true&article=a4031cc009dbf5981a90f7ac8a17398dErtQMxx8%2Fgo%3D

16/04/2026

Common Pitfalls Orthodontic Publication – Part 2

In my last post, I discussed some pitfalls related to systematic reviews and RCTs, including sample size calculation and a brief introduction to shortcomings in randomization. In this post, I will elaborate more on randomization.

2️⃣ Randomized controlled trials:

🎲 Randomization:
The purpose of randomization is to create similar groups and isolate the treatment effect from any other effect. This way, we can say the observed effect is due to the intervention.

🔶 Some studies perform simple randomization which is nice but they provide very balanced groups in small samples. This raises some concern, why?

For example, if we flip a coin 30 times (representing our sample size) to assign participants into two groups, the probability of getting exactly 15 participants in each group is relatively low (around 14%). In practice, simple randomization can easily lead to unequal group sizes, particularly in smaller trials.

🔶 For this reason, researchers often use block randomization. In block randomization, participants are divided into blocks, and each block has an equal number of participants assigned to each group (color denotes group).

Now, can we get very similar groups?

Not really. Block randomization gives us equal group sizes, but not necessarily similar groups in terms of important covariates.

🔶 To improve this, we use stratification. Stratification means dividing the sample based on important covariates, then randomizing within each group. For example, splitting participants by s*x (male/female) or age groups, then randomizing inside each subgroup.

🔳 Allocation concealment:
Randomization should be hidden from anyone involved in enrolling participants (allocation concealment).

⛔️The question now can we start randomization before collecting the whole sample❓

3️⃣ Blinding⏳

08/04/2026

Common Pitfalls Orthodontic Publication – Part 1

I receive many manuscripts to review from leading orthodontic journals. I actually receive more articles than I can review every month. However, I try to accept invitations as much as I can, especially for journals with a reasonable and flexible review period.
Based on my experience in reviewing, I believe we are currently facing several problems in orthodontic publications
1️⃣ Systematic reviews:
There are many duplicated SRs with almost the same outcomes and results, with significant overlap. If you are a reviewer, please search and compare the submitted manuscript with published SRs. If there is no significant change in the idea, design, or results, ask yourself why it should be accepted.

2️⃣ Randomized controlled trials:

🧮 Sample size:
Sample size should be calculated using data from a previous study and the same tests that will be applied once the dataset is collected, at least for the primary outcome. If no data are available, a pilot study is needed.
🔷Consider the data structure:
If you are collecting data on different occasions, the data become longitudinal. If you are measuring data from the same person, the data will be clustered (e.g., WSL on more than one tooth).
🔷Avoid using T-shirt effect sizes (small, medium, etc.) to make assumptions about the data.
🔷Keep in mind that if your analysis is not sufficiently powered, your study will not be useful.

🎲 Randomization:
🔶Consider relevant confounders in your study. Age and s*x are not the only important factors—think carefully and include the key variables in your randomization process. Otherwise, your study loses one of the main advantages of an RCT over other designs.
🔶Consider different randomization designs such as cluster or split-mouth.

👁‍🗨If you are interested, keep an eye on the next post.
♾I will try to elaborate more on these issues in the summer.

11/02/2026

Artificial Intelligence has many branches that can be used for different purposes. One of these branches is machine learning, and it can be trained and then tested to evaluate the model’s functionality and accuracy.

A common question now is:

Can an machine learning models accurately predict the need for tooth extraction in the context of orthodontic treatment?

To answer this question, you can read our latest publication.

I would like to thank Prof. Flores-Mir for his guidance, great contribution, and continuous support.

Journal Link:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-026-01209-z

RG link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400590857_Beyond_the_algorithm_potential_orthodontic_tooth-extraction_decisions_in_the_age_of_AI

06/07/2024

15/06/2024

كُلُّ عامٍ وأَنْتُمْ بِخَيْرٍ

31/05/2024

Evidence based orthodontics
I always wonder whether we can adopt the acceleration procedures in our practice or not?
In the recent study we covered the MID and SWE in treatment duration which help us in making informed decision in our practice.
The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important.
The smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method.
We have done a study to evaluate the MID and SWE in orthodontic treatment duration.
We found that the MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. A greater SWE
than the MID is required to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

I am indebted to the team for the great work: Despina Koletsi, Aya Jourieh, Haris Khan, Fahad Abdul, Vasiliki Koretsi, Yaser Alrefaiy, Hassan Awaisi, Qamar, Saeed. Special thanks to Prof Eliadis And the Prof. Guyatt for their supervison.

For further read:
RG link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381039557_The_minimal_important_difference_in_orthodontic_treatment_duration_a_survey_across_adult_patients

Journal link:
academic.oup.com